{"id":392,"date":"2005-10-18T18:30:20","date_gmt":"2005-10-18T22:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/shermandorn.com\/wordpress\/?p=392"},"modified":"2005-10-18T18:30:20","modified_gmt":"2005-10-18T22:30:20","slug":"who-understands-peer-reviewing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/?p=392","title":{"rendered":"Who understands peer reviewing?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In the last few months, I&#8217;ve sent out a sprinkling of manuscripts for <a href=\"http:\/\/epaa.asu.edu\/\">Education Policy Analysis Archives<\/a> to folks outside the normal spheres of academe&#151;not only those in think tanks who generally understand reviewing processes because they often submit to refereed journals, but also those in the surrounding &#8220;wonkosphere&#8221; (for want of a better word), whom I think would understand refereeing.  In two cases, from individuals I generally respect, I&#8217;ve received e-mails that indicate they don&#8217;t get the concept.  &#8220;I&#8217;m not sure why you want me to review this.  Don&#8217;t publish it!&#8221; ran the spirit of one e-mail.  &#8220;You wouldn&#8217;t be doing your journal a favor, because of the following errors:&#8230;&#8221; So I thanked my correspondent for doing exactly what I asked by providing me a reality-check.  Much to her credit, she replied to indicate she got <em>it<\/em>.  I think.<br \/>\nHere are the rules of refereed journals:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Not everything submitted is published.\n<li>Nothing published is perfect.\n<li>The editor(s) dispose(s) of some portion of manuscripts before anyone else sees them, for a variety of reasons.\n<li>Referees are sometimes cranky and sometimes misread pieces of a manuscript.\n<li>Editors take referee reports very seriously and still ignore a certain portion of them.\n<li>There is no law requiring a certain number of reports, or a certain quality of reporting, before an editor makes a decision.\n<li>Journals differ in what precisely is blind to either referees or authors.\n<li>Thick skins are required when reading reviews. Einstein apparently <a href=\"http:\/\/www.physicstoday.org\/vol-58\/iss-9\/p43.html\">got huffy<\/a> when faced with peer review for the first time in the 1930s.  (Thanks to <a href=\"http:\/\/hnn.us\/blogs\/entries\/16572.html\">Ralph Luker<\/a> for the pointer.)  (See also the item above about variations in refereeing practices.)\n<li>There is no natural law about refereeing, but it sharpens published works, and Plato would approve of it.  (See Book 7 of <cite>The Republic<\/cite>&#151;no, not the cave allegory, but the part later where the Socrates character is discussing the proper training of philosopher-kings.)\n<li>There are suspicions in academe that journals that charge page costs also accept a higher proportion of manuscripts.\n<li>There is a suspicion in this editor that fields with higher needs to demonstrate status sometimes have obsessive-compulsive disorders over refereeing processes. The main route for getting new ideas into circulation in physics is not refereed.  Then again, physics is a Science Biggie that doesn&#8217;t have to prove itself to anybody.\n<li>I edit a journal that is refereed, and I don&#8217;t anticipate ending the refereeing for a simple reason: I don&#8217;t know everything or even nearly everything I need to know to make publication decisions.<\/ol>\n<p>The test on this material is next Friday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In the last few months, I&#8217;ve sent out a sprinkling of manuscripts for Education Policy Analysis Archives to folks outside the normal spheres of academe&#151;not only those in think tanks who generally understand reviewing processes because they often submit to refereed journals, but also those in the surrounding &#8220;wonkosphere&#8221; (for want of a better word), [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-epaa"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pag0MB-6k","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=392"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shermandorn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}